Nezhat Farr Reza, Finger Tamara Natasha, Vetere Patrick, Radjabi Amir Reza, Vega Mario, Averbuch Lauren, Khalil Susan, Altinbas Sadiman Kiykac, Lax Daniel
*St Luke's Roosevelt Hospital, Columbia University, New York; †Winthrop University Hospital, Mineola; and ‡New York Downtown Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY; §Etlik Zubeyde Hanim Women's Health Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey; and ∥Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2014 Mar;24(3):600-7. doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000096.
The objective of this study was to examine perioperative outcomes, including complication rates, of conventional laparoscopy (CL) versus robotic-assisted laparoscopy (RALS) in the evaluation and management of early, advanced, and recurrent ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancer.
This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of surgery performed from July 2008 to December 2012. Sixty-three women had 83 surgeries performed; 22 surgeries for early-stage disease (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I) and 61 for advanced and/or recurrent disease.
Of the 22 for early stage, 10 were CL, 9 were RALS, and 3 were laparoscopy converted to laparotomy (LP). There was no significant difference between CL and RALS in estimated blood loss (EBL, P = 0.27) or length of stay (LOS, P = 0.43); however, both had significantly less EBL (P = 0.03 and 0.03, respectively) and LOS (P = 0.03 and 0.03) than LP. There was no difference in OR time among the groups (P = 0.79). One patient (33%) had an intraoperative complication in LP. One patient (10%) had a postoperative complication in CL, 2 (22%) in RALS, and 1 (33%) in LP, with no significant difference (P = 0.61).Among the 42 patients with advanced/recurrent disease, 61 surgeries were performed: 14 diagnostic procedures and 47 cytoreductive surgeries. Of the 47, there was no difference in operating room time (P = 0.10). There was no difference in EBL or LOS between CL and RALS (P = 0.82, P = 0.87); however, both were less in CL (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02) and RALS (P = 0.01 and P = 0.02) compared with LP. There were 5 (63%) intraoperative transfusions in LP and none in CL or RALS. When including all surgeries for advanced/recurrent disease, there was 1 intraoperative complication (12%) in LP. There was no difference in postoperative complications between groups (P = 0.89); 8 patients (19%) had postoperative complications in CL, 2 (18%) in RALS, and 2 (25%) in LP. Overall, there were no grade 4 or 5 complications and no perioperative or intraoperative deaths.
In our experience, perioperative outcomes are comparable between CL and RALS in both early and advanced/recurrent disease and not inferior to laparotomy, making CL and RALS an acceptable approach in selected patients.
本研究旨在探讨在早期、晚期及复发性卵巢癌、输卵管癌和腹膜癌的评估与治疗中,传统腹腔镜手术(CL)与机器人辅助腹腔镜手术(RALS)的围手术期结局,包括并发症发生率。
这是一项对2008年7月至2012年12月前瞻性维护的手术数据库进行的回顾性分析。63名女性接受了83台手术;其中22台用于早期疾病(国际妇产科联盟I期),61台用于晚期和/或复发性疾病。
在22例早期手术中,10例为CL,9例为RALS,3例为腹腔镜中转开腹手术(LP)。CL与RALS在估计失血量(EBL,P = 0.27)或住院时间(LOS,P = 0.43)方面无显著差异;然而,两者的EBL(分别为P = 0.03和0.03)和LOS(分别为P = 0.03和0.03)均显著低于LP。各组间手术时间无差异(P = 0.79)。LP中有1例患者(33%)发生术中并发症。CL中有1例患者(10%)发生术后并发症,RALS中有2例(22%),LP中有1例(33%),差异无统计学意义(P = 0.61)。在42例晚期/复发性疾病患者中,共进行了61台手术:14例诊断性手术和47例减瘤手术。在47例减瘤手术中,手术室时间无差异(P = 0.10)。CL与RALS在EBL或LOS方面无差异(P = 0.82,P = 0.87);然而,与LP相比,CL(P < 0.001和P = 0.02)和RALS(P = 0.01和P = 0.02)的EBL和LOS均更低。LP中有5例(63%)术中输血,CL和RALS中均无。当纳入所有晚期/复发性疾病手术时,LP中有1例术中并发症(12%)。各组术后并发症无差异(P = 0.89);CL中有8例患者(19%)发生术后并发症,RALS中有2例(18%),LP中有2例(25%)。总体而言,无4级或5级并发症,无围手术期或术中死亡。
根据我们的经验,在早期和晚期/复发性疾病中,CL与RALS的围手术期结局相当,且不劣于开腹手术,这使得CL和RALS在特定患者中是一种可接受的手术方式。